Did you know that Sarah Palin is suing the New York Times for defamation of character. And that, based on the Times’ own reporting, she has a real case?
In 2011, when then-congressperson Gabby Giffords was shot and severely wounded by the lunatic jared lee loughner – who didn’t succeed in murdering Ms. Giffords but killed 6 others while trying – the Times editorialized that loughner’s actions were the “clear” and “direct” result of a flyer Palin had put out months before showing cross-hairs over a number of Democrat congresspeople she considered vulnerable to being defeated, one of whom was Ms. Giffords.
The fact that there was no evidence loughner ever saw the flyer, and that in all his written ravings there was never any mention of Sarah Palin, and that he had an animus toward Giffords which predated the flyer’s existence by several years, and the fact that, in any event, other politicians have used the “cross-hairs” technique in their literature for years? Irrelevant’n’immaterial to The Times.
So Ms. Palin is suing.
What are her prospects? Well, read this segment from John Hinderaker’s latest piece at powerlineblog.com and decide for yourself:
The Times said that Palin’s “incitement,” which it described wrongly, had a “clear” and “direct” connection to the murder of six people and wounding of several more. That is obviously a very serious charge. And yet, as the Times now admits, there is not a shred of evidence to support it. In fact, we don’t know whether the murderer, Jared Loughner, had ever heard of Sarah Palin. There is zero reason to think that he ever saw her political action committee’s map of “targeted” districts.
So, how can accusing a person of having a “clear” and “direct” causal connection to six murders, without a shred of evidence, possibly be an “honest mistake”? Isn’t it a textbook case of reckless disregard?
Ms. Palin can make a strong argument that the Times editorialists knew that their smear was a lie, based on reporting done by the Times itself. (The editorialists’ defense likely will have to be that they don’t read their own newspaper.) But at a minimum, it seems that the Times editorial was published with reckless disregard for whether it was true or not. It was a product of sheer hatred toward Palin.
Can Palin win such a suit? Probably not – especially since, as Mr. Hinderaker points out further on, she has brought it in New York, which – to say the very least – is not Palin country.
But, then again, maybe she can. And, either way, a trial like this one is going to make The Times’ editorial board look like a bunch of jerks who let their political partisanship override their journalistic responsibilities…
…which, let’s be honest, is not a bad working definition of that bunch, is it?
